The High Court has refused an application by Ann Sugrue to discharge her appearance and set aside an order renewing a Bank of Ireland summons against her and Karl Sugrue. The ruling leaves the renewal order in place; it does not decide the bank’s underlying claim for €142,894.11.
The bank’s claim comprises personal loans and loans to General Safety Managers Limited, which the defendants had guaranteed. The summons was issued in February 2015. After attempts to serve it at addresses in Dublin and Wicklow failed, the bank obtained an order renewing it in October 2017. The summons was served at the defendants’ Mullingar address the following month, and both defendants entered appearances.
Ann Sugrue said she signed her appearance after her husband told her it was needed so he could deal with the bank. She said she felt controlled by him and unable to seek independent legal advice, and described her decision as effectively made under duress. The bank filed no affidavit contradicting her account of their communications. The judge nevertheless found that entering an appearance was a deliberate act and that her mistaken belief concerned the legal consequences of not entering one, rather than a mistake of fact. He also noted that an appearance generally protects a defendant from default judgment.
The judge refused to discharge the appearance and, in turn, refused to set aside the renewal order. He considered the parties’ conduct and the potential prejudice on each side. The defendants had moved between five addresses in less than four years without notifying the bank, and the court accepted that those changes caused the trail to go cold and were the principal reason the renewal application was late. The judge found no evidence that the moves were intended to avoid the bank or the proceedings.
There was also a gap in the bank’s evidence about what happened between April 2015 and March 2017, and the judge noted delays by both sides. After the summons was served, the second defendant waited until July 2019 to file her application, despite the bank consenting to adjournments to allow it to be brought. The resulting return date fell more than six years after the demand under the guarantee, creating potential prejudice to the bank because part of its claim might face a limitation argument. The judge said he was not deciding whether that argument would succeed.
Justice Patrick Quinn concluded that the balance of justice favoured refusing the application. The proceedings for the bank’s claim were not determined by this ruling.